Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-5d6d958fb5-z6b88 Total loading time: 0.686 Render date: 2022-11-28T19:04:13.284Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

23 - State-dependent foraging rules for social animals in selfish herds

from Part III - Action selection in social contexts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2011

Anil K. Seth
University of Sussex
Tony J. Prescott
University of Sheffield
Joanna J. Bryson
University of Bath
Get access



Many animals gain benefits from living in groups, such as a dilution in predation risk when they are closely aggregated (referred to as the ‘selfish herd’). Game theory has been used to predict many properties of groups (such as the expected group size), but little is known about the proximate mechanisms by which animals achieve these predicted properties. We explore a possible proximate mechanism using a spatially explicit, individual-based model, where individuals can choose to rest or forage on the basis of a rule of thumb that is dependent upon both their energetic reserves and the presence and actions of neighbours. The resulting behaviour and energetic reserves of individuals, and the resulting group sizes, are shown to be affected both by the ability of the forager to detect conspecifics and areas of the environment suitable for foraging, and by the distribution of energy in the environment. The model also demonstrates that if animals are able to choose (based upon their energetic reserves) between selecting the best foraging sites available, or moving towards their neighbours for safety, then this also has significant effects upon individuals and group sizes. The implications of the proposed rule of thumb are discussed.


When animals form groups, it is often assumed that each individual faces various costs and benefits of group membership (Giraldeau and Caraco, 2000; Krause and Ruxton, 2002; Pulliam and Caraco, 1984). For example, within a foraging group, benefits could come through an increased likelihood of finding food or detecting predators, while costs could come through increased competition for resources, or increased visibility to predators. Much theoretical work has been conducted examining how the trade-off between these costs and benefits can determine the stable size of a group (Clark and Mangel, 1984; Ekman and Rosander, 1987; Giraldeau and Caraco, 2000; Higashi and Yamamura 1993; Sibly, 1983), and how these predictions match with empirical observations (Krause and Ruxton, 2002). However, although these studies have considered which group sizes should be stable from a functional perspective, little work has been conducted examining the proximate mechanisms resulting in the formation of these groups: recent models (e.g., Flierl et al., 1999; Juanico et al., 2003) have considered the actions of individuals following extremely simple rules of thumb. However, as noted by Krause and Ruxton (2002), little consideration has been given to making these rules realistic. State-dependent models of behaviour (Clark and Mangel, 2000; Houston and McNamara, 1999) offer us a means of predicting realistic rules, by considering which behaviours at a particular moment in time an animal with a given state set (such as its energy reserves, or the environment it currently occupies) should conduct in order to maximise some measure of its fitness. Therefore, unlike previous spatially-explicit models considering group formation behaviour, the model presented in this chapter bases its rules upon the results of state-dependent models (Rands and Johnstone, 2006; Rands et al., 2003, 2008).

Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Bryson, J. JAndo, YLehmann, H 2007 Agent-based modelling as scientific method: a case study analysing primate social behaviourPhil. Trans. R. Soc. B 362 1685CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Camazine, SDeneubourg, J.-LFranks, N. R 2001 Self-organization in Biological SystemsPrinceton, NJPrinceton University PressGoogle Scholar
Clark, C. WMangel, M 1984 Foraging and flocking strategies: information in an uncertain environmentAm. Nat. 123 626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, C. WMangel, M 2000 Dynamic State Variable Models in Ecology: Methods and ApplicationsNew YorkOxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Conroy, M. JCohen, YJames, F. CMatsinos, Y. GMaurer, B. A 1995 Parameter estimation, reliability, and model improvement for spatially explicit models of animal populationsEcol. Appl. 5 17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couzin, I. DKrause, J 2003 Self-organization and collective behavior in vertebratesAdvances in the Study of Behaviour 32 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowlishaw, G 1997 Trade-offs between foraging and predation risk determine habitat use in a desert baboon populationAnim. Behav. 53 667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Vries, H 2009 On using the DomWorld model to evaluate dominance ranking methodsBehaviour 146 843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duriez, OBauer, SDestin, A 2009 What decision rules might pink-footed geese use to depart on migration? An individual-based modelBehav. Ecol. 20 560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekman, JRosander, B 1987 Starvation risk and flock size of the social forager: when there is a flocking costTheor. Popul. Biol. 31 167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flierl, GGrünbaum, DLevin, SOlson, D 1999 From individuals to aggregations: the interplay between behavior and physicsJ. Theor. Biol. 196 397CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giraldeau, L.-ACaraco, T 2000 Social Foraging TheoryPrinceton, NJPrinceton University PressGoogle Scholar
Giraldeau, L.-AGillis, D 1985 Optimal group size can be subtle: a reply to SiblyAnim. Behav. 33 666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, I. M 2000 Recruiters and joiners: using optimal skew theory to predict group size and the division of resources within groups of social foragersAm. Nat. 155 684CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamilton, W. D 1971 Geometry for the selfish herdJ. Theor. Biol. 31 295CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hancock, P. AMilner-Gulland, E. J 2006 Optimal movement strategies for social foragers in unpredictable environmentsEcology 87 2094CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hancock, P. AMilner-Gulland, E. JKeeling, M. J 2006 Modelling the many-wrongs principle: the navigational advantages of aggregation in nomadic foragersJ. Theor. Biol. 240 302CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hemelrijk, C. K 1999 An individual-orientated model of the emergence of despotic and egalitarian societiesProc. Roy. Soc. B 266 361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemelrijk, C. K 2000 Towards the integration of social dominance and spatial structureAnim. Behav. 59 1035CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Higashi, MYamamura, N 1993 What determines group size? Insider-outsider conflict and its resolutionAm. Nat. 142 553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houston, A. IMcNamara, J. M 1993 A theoretical investigation of the fat reserves and mortality levels of small birds in winterOrnis Scand. 24 205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houston, A. IMcNamara, J. M 1999 Models of Adaptive Behaviour: An Approach Based on StateCambridgeCambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Houston, A. IMcNamara, J. MSteer, M. D 2007 Do we expect natural selection to produce rational behaviourPhil. Trans. R. Soc. B 362 1531CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
James, RBennett, P. GKrause, J 2004 Geometry for mutualistic and selfish herds: the limited domain of dangerJ. Theor. Biol. 228 107CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Juanico, D. EMonterola, CSaloma, C 2003 Allelomimesis as a generic clustering mechanism for interaction agentsPhysica A 320 590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, A. JCowlishaw, G 2007 When to use social information: the advantage of large group size in individual decision makingBiol. Lett. 3 137CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
King, A. JCowlishaw, G 2009 Leaders, followers, and group decision-makingCommun. Integr. Biol. 2 147CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kramer, D. L 1985 Are colonies supraoptimal groupsAnim. Behav. 33 1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, J 1994 Differential fitness returns in relation to spatial position in groupsBiol. Rev. 69 187CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krause, JRuxton, G. D 2002 Living in GroupsOxfordOxford University PressGoogle Scholar
McNamara, J. MHouston, A. I 1986 The common currency for behavioral decisionsAm. Nat. 127 358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, J. MHouston, A. ILima, S. L 1994 Foraging routines of small birds in winter: a theoretical investigationJ. Avian Biol. 25 287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minitab, 1998
Morrell, L. JJames, R 2008 Mechanisms for aggregation in animals: rule success depends on ecological variablesBehav. Ecol. 19 193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, T. LHaefner, J. WNugala, VDecimo, R. DMendes, L 1994 The selfish herd revisited: do simple movement rules reduce relative predation riskJ. Theor. Biol. 167 73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prescott, T. JBryson, J. JSeth, A. K 2007 Modelling natural action selectionPhil. Trans. R. Soc. B 362 1521CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pulliam, H. RCaraco, T 1984 Living in groups: is there an optimal group sizeBehavioural ecology: an evolutionary approachKrebs, J. RDavies, N. BOxfordBlackwell Science,122Google Scholar
Rands, S. ACowlishaw, GPettifor, R. ARowcliffe, J. MJohnstone, R. A 2003 The spontaneous emergence of leaders and followers in a foraging pairNature 423 432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rands, S. ACowlishaw, GPettifor, R. ARowcliffe, J. MJohnstone, R. A 2008 The emergence of leaders and followers in foraging pairs when the qualities of individuals differBMC Evol. Biol 8 51CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rands, S. ACuthill, I. C 2001 Separating the effects of predation risk and interrupted foraging upon mass changes in the blue titParus caeruleus. Proc. R. Soc. B 268 1783CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rands, S. AJohnstone, R. A 2006 Statistical measures for defining an individual's degree of independence within state-dependent dynamic gamesBMC Evol. Biol. 6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rands, S. APettifor, R. ARowcliffe, J. MCowlishaw, G 2004 State-dependent foraging rules for social animals in selfish herdsProc. Roy. Soc. B 271 2613CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rands, S. APettifor, R. ARowcliffe, J. MCowlishaw, G 2006 Social foraging and dominance relationships: the effects of socially mediated interferenceBehav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 60 572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rook, A. JHuckle, C. A 1995 Synchronization of ingestive behaviour by grazing dairy cowsAnim. Sci. 60 25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruckelshaus, MHartway, CKareiva, P 1997 Assessing the data requirements of spatially explicit dispersal modelsConserv. Biol. 11 1298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruckstuhl, K. ENeuhaus, P 2002 Sexual segregation in ungulates: a comparative test of three hypothesesBiol. Rev. 77 77CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schreiber, S. JVejdani, M 2006 Handling time promotes the coevolution of aggregation in predator-prey systemsProc. Roy. Soc. B 273 185CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sellers, W. IHill, R. ALogan, B. S 2007 An agent-based model of group decision making in baboonsPhil. Trans. Roy. Soc. B 362 1699CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sibly, R. M 1983 Optimal group size is unstableAnim. Behav. 31 946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stankowich, T 2003 Marginal predation methodologies and the importance of predator preferencesAnim. Behav. 66 589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stillman, R. ABautista, L. MAlonso, J. CAlonso, J. A 2002 Modelling state-dependent interference in common cranesJ. Anim. Ecol. 71 874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stillman, R. AGoss-Custard, J. DCaldow, R. W. G 1997 Modelling interference from basic foraging behaviourJ. Anim. Ecol. 66 692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stillman, R. AGoss-Custard, J. DWest, A. D 2000 Predicting mortality in novel environments: tests and sensitivity of a behaviour-based modelJ. Appl. Ecol. 37 564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uster, DZuberbühler, K 2001 The functional significance of Diana monkey ‘clear’ callsBehaviour 138 741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viscido, S. VMiller, MWethey, D. S 2001 The response of a selfish herd to an attack from outside the group perimeterJ. Theor. Biol. 208 315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viscido, S. VMiller, MWethey, D. S 2002 The dilemma of the selfish herd: the search for a realistic movement ruleJ. Theor. Biol. 217 183CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilensky, U 1999 NetLogoNorthwestern University Scholar
Zollner, P. A 2000 Comparing the landscape level perceptual abilities of forest sciurids in fragmented agricultural landscapesLandscape Ecol. 15 523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zollner, P. ALima, S. L 1999 Search strategies for landscape-level interpatch movementsEcology 80 1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats